"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I'd say they should have at least half of the General CW/data subbands.


No need to if the code is eliminated as they can easily upgrade to General
with a 35 question test that is only marginally harder than the Technician
test.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Clint"

Arnie : On the contrary, Dwight. He has claimed in one of my threads that
we are nothing more than knuckledraggers who don't understand modern
technology.

BZZZZZT! Wrong...

(1) I have never used the term "knuckledragger" at all, nor have I called
any of you guys one...
(2) I have never said that you "don't understand modern technology". All my
comments have been to the effect that the PCTA crowd has an agenda that
doesn't reflect the change in times and modernization of communications,
both of which is suppose to be reflected in the ham radio community... I
never said you didn't UNDERSTAND modern technology, I said you guys weren't
wwilling to allow the testing to "advance the hobby into the modern age."
__________________________________________________ ___________

"Clint" wrote in response to my reply ...

"the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned
something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in
1952."

Arnie : Gee, you got us there, Clint. All of us knuckle-dragging CW'ers
are just
caught in a time warp.

"Yep. pretty much."

Arnie -
KT4ST

agenda that
doesn't reflect the change in times and modernization of communications,

Of love this term that the No-Code Knuckle Draggers keep throwing out. I guess
there meaning of the Term "modernization" means Dumbing Down to there Level.

In article , "Dwight Stewart"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Here, try this one:

"All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse
Code skills is more experienced, more qualified, and
has more radio communications options available than
a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills."


Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to that
statement at all.

I disagree!

Apply that logic to some other skill or knowledge. For example, the Smith
Chart. All else being equal, is a ham who knows how to use the Smith Chart to
solve transmission line and impedance matching problems more experienced and
more qualified than one who does not?

Or how about Ohm's Law? The phonetic alphabet? Typing skills?

Even with that (the all being equal aspect), there is no
truth to the "more experienced" or "more qualified" when it comes to
absolutely anything beyond Morse Code.

You think that skills do not transfer in any way? I disagree!

Therefore, those two have no place in
that paragraph without Morse Code, not the radio amateur, specified as the
"more" being discussed. Therefore, only the "more radio communications
options" has any significant ring of truth to it.

Sorry Dwight, you're simply off base on this one. I cannot see how you can deny
that having Morse code skills makes a ham more experienced and more qualified -
all else being equal.

All else being equal, having Morse skills makes a ham more experienced and more
qualified than not having them. But that fact is not a proof that those skills
*must* be tested.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
k.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician
class license has not resulted in a technical revolution in
amateur radio from newly-licensed "technically qualified"
amateurs. (snip)

I didn't know the Technician license was supposed to lead to a technical
revolution in anything, Jim. Instead, I thought they were just supposed to
participate in the same activities most other Amateur Radio operators are
participating in. Why the unique expectation for Technician license
holders
alone?

Those who pushed for the Tech no code license loudly and repeatedly claimed
that it would lead to a major influx of technically bright hams that would
lead to significant technical advances in ham radio since it was supposedly
code keeping them out.

Just who made such a statement in 1990 or before?

Well that influx of technical types didn't happen.

Over 200 thousand NO-CODE-TEST Technician licenses happened
since 1991.

You seem to be saying that every one of them "isn't technical."

Tsk, tsk...

Unfortunately, the Technician licensees following that change are saddled
with an expectation that they themselves did not create.

"Saddled" with what?

They shoulder the
burden of expectations created by those who would not have to fulfill them.

WHAT "burden of expectations?"

In the last four decades of US amateur radio the MAJOR TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCES in the state of the amateur radio technological art have been
made by COMMERCIAL people designing and making radios for amateur
radio.

The narrow bandpass filters that made SSB filter-method transceivers
possible used basic designs intended for commercial and military radio.
The Collins Radio mechanical filters were intended originally for landline-
microwave radio relay equipment.

The introduction of SSB to US amateur radio was made possible largely
by Collins Radio receiving a design-development contract from USAF for
the Strategic Air Command. That "proved" that single-channel SSB
transceivers were practical.

The frequency-control of amateur radio transceivers is due to adaptation
of commercial and military designs of PLL synthesizers and, later, to
designs of Direct Digital Synthesis sub-systems once microprocessors
were available and low enough in cost.

You are probably too young to have experienced the very COARSE and
sometimes inaccurate frequency control in transceivers of four decades
ago...and the "crystal calibrators" used to spot-check "bandspread"
and "main" tuning dials at 100 KHz increments...and when amateur
transmitters needed individual quartz crystals to insure stability on HF
bands.

The "TOR" in such RTTY/Data systems using PACTOR, AMTOR, etc.
means "Teleprinter Over Radio" and was developed primarily for
commercial users. The various "TORs" are the mainstay today of
maritime shipping communications.

The modern computer you are using in here does (or should) reach
throughput rates up to 56 KBPS in a band-limited space of just 3 KHz
bandwidth (the telephone line). That wasn't invented or innovated in
amateur radio by some morse code user.

Microprocessors and microcontrollers are at the heart of nearly EVERY
MF-HF-VHF-UHF amateur radio receiver/transmitter/transceiver. Those
can trace back to about 1973 and the first Intel microprocessor chip or
the competitors appearing shortly thereafter.

The in-line, on-line antenna bridge-detector to enable automatic tuning
known as the "Bruene Detector" came about from the T-192 transmitter
designed and built for a USMC contract by Collins Radio...in 1955. All
of the automatic antenna tuners of today can trace their ancestry directly
to that practical, working implementation of 48 years ago.

Single-channel FM transceivers at VHF and higher owe much to the
pioneering of Motorola done just prior to the US entry into World War 2.
Both AM and FM mobile radios were pioneered by various commercial
concerns and several metropolitan police departments just before WW2.

The fact that quartz crystal units became relatively cheap for amateur
purchasing just after WW2 was a result of the 2nd highest priority in
war production (behind the Manhattan Project) when the US total
production averaged a MILLION quartz crystals a MONTH. US military
contracts spurred the development of "artificial" (man-done) growth of
quartz crystal blanks which came about just after WW2.

What have been the "advances" for on-off morse codings? The electronic
keyer? An adaptation of already-known basic digital circuits to create
the controllable dot and dash times. More "sophisticated" keyers used
conventional keyboards and computer components and software to
enable writing to be transmitted by on-off keying methods. Hardly an
"advance in technology."

The brick-wall DSP filters touted by a few morsemen owes its existance
again to military efforts and development for SONAR...and later adaption
of that to telephony circuits and general communications.

Whether or not one believes in code testing, it highlights some of the
inherent flaws in the argument that code keeps technical types out of ham
radio.

Those who love the PAST, the "good old days," and the simplicity of
primitive technology of a century ago might be attracted to a radio
service requiring a demonstrated morse code test. Morse code was
first used in 1844, almost 160 years ago.

Ordinary mortals who have adapted to the new millenium are very well
acquainted with men traveling to the moon and those men being televised
live from a quarter million miles away walking on its surface. We are all
used to global communications satellites in-use for two decades, FAX
transmission of documents and images from the home (or a corner chain
store at a shopping center), color television for over three decades and,
for some, digital television with superb picture quality. Popular as well
as
classic music through CDs has already reached epic market heights and
the MPEG-based DVD has replaced the magnetic videotape. Anyone can
buy a pair of FRS handheld radios at consumer stores for less than $50,
absolutely no license required. Cordless phones are available now at
5 GHz carrier frequencies, something unheard-of or even expected three
decades ago. One in three Americans is a cellular telephone subscriber
and has the capability of dialing directly to any other direct dial
telephone
in the world from anywhere within a cell site's antenna reach.

Do you REALLY expect that morse code offers a "challenge" let alone
interest in emulating a century-past primitive radio communications
means?!? Incredible!

LHA

In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net writes:

I don't whine or nag.

Yea, you pretty much do.

I have a strong belief in my position code testing,
and I am able to state it with clarity, passion, and conviction.

But simply without any convincing debate points or ideas other
than "do it, we all had to" and "do it because you are told to do
it, you are a insert childish, juvenile personal attack here if you
do not want to.

Clint:

Please provide either the direct quotes from me where I have made
such statements in the exact manner and with the exact meaning
that you infer, or your immediate apology for mischaracterizing my
postings on this topic.

I'll give you a clue: I have very carefully avoided saying those things.
I have always supported my position on code testing on the basis of
the value of the Morse/CW mode to the ARS, and the need for radio
amateurs to learn and gain useful proficiency in this mode in order
to exploit it's many advantageous features and benefits. I've NEVER
said, "I had to take code tests, so you should have to," except in
this very sentence.

You, Kim,
and most of the NCTA appear to be limited to name-calling --

boy if that' isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

WHO is doing the name calling? it's not the NCTA group calling
the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults
using spurious comparisons.

I may have referred to NCTA's as "lazy," but not "stupid." As a matter
of fact, I find that lazy people are usually quite ingenious in finding ways
to avoid doing things they can't be bothered to do.

Everyone is "lazy" about something. I'm lazy about a lot of things.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:22 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Not necessary, Dwight. I was right the first time.

Heh...no you weren't - FCC dropped the 13 and 20WPM tests last time,
just like they'll drop the remaining vestiges of code testing this
time around.

There's still time for you to change your mind before a report & order
comes out, though...

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

I have stated many times that I fully expect the FCC to abolish code
testing as a result of WRC-03. This will have little or no impact on me
personally, so I have nothing to change my mind about. I will always
be a 20-WPM code-tested Extra-class amateur radio operator, and
nobody can take that away from me. Unfortunately for the new Zeroed-
Out Hams, nothing can confer that status upon them. I will continue
to operate as I always have. I don't ask anyone's license class or
code speed on-the-air.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:


That doesn't seem to be how the FCC (which is where the final decision
on code testing will come from) views it:

"We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems,
including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and
high definition television systems, are based on digital communication
technologies. We also note that no communication system has been
designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the
ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast,
modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems.
Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last
fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy
proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and
to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs
expertise."

SOURCE -- The Federal Communications Commission
In the Matter of WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Amateur Service Rules.
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: December 22, 1999 Released: December 30, 1999

You may now proceed to thank me for finally clearing this up.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now: The FCC doesn't have the
best interests of the ARS in mind. The ARS is an administrative
liability for the FCC, and they would be more motivated to deregulate
it as much as possible than to bolster licensing requirements in any
meaningful way. Therefore, the FCC's words must be taken with
a grain of salt, and I'm on a self-imposed low-sodium diet.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

Please explain the "large roll" that math plays in amateur radio.

Were you on a roll and slipped in the butter?

Perhaps Larry would comment?

Hmmm, well, I'm just a couple of millimeters shorter than 6' tall,
weigh 180 lbs. soaking wet, and I'm an amateur radio operator.
Unfortunately, I'm somewhat "Math challenged." Therefore, I'm
probably not too likely to develop any new formuli for the computation
of the various electrical characteristics of any new mode to be
developed for the ARS. I can, however, use my calculator(s) to
compute basic problems using Ohm's Law, though I'd need to do
some brushing up first. So, there you have it.

BTW, nobody that was "on" me would slip in any butter, since I
don't use it. Too much cholesteroil.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

If it seems to you that I am drawing a parallel between this fistfight
between two schoolboys and the behavior of some of the participants in
this debate, it's because I am...and matters are compounded by the
fact that this is not an isolated incident between two boys in a
suburban city in the Northeastern U.S., it's right out here on the
Internet for the whole world to see...and smell.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

John:

I find your story quite illuminating, and I don't necessarily disagree with
the point you're making. However, it is the nature of human beings, who
are prone to having a passionate reaction to issues of concern to them,
to seek to engage those who offer an equally passionate response. If
and when this trait ceases to be a part of the human conditon, we will
be way beyond any concern for things like code testing, or amateur
radio itself, for that matter. We'll probably be building flying saucers
and travelling to planets in far away galaxies.

73 de Larry, K3LT